might be your take on it... I see it as a direct confrontation of an issue- mainly an adult man, who by your telling is obsessed with the form/function/look of his own penis head... and a little tiny baby who is about ot be born- and perhaps mutilated due to this man's self centered view of human sexuality being based off the "ideal" which is HIM. I view the mutilation of a child for that motivation as a PERSONAL ATTACK... (upon the baby)... as such- I was incensed to think that a father could not only THINK that way- but be legally ALLOWED to make such defining decisions based on egocentric and ill informed perceptions of human sensuality.
perhaps... have you ever had a clamp tightened onto your genital flesh until the blood supply was killed and bloodless cutting could begin? Have you ever had your teeny tiny infant sex organ ripped and torn and turned inside out to soothe the nervous adults in the room? That's caustic mom. I'll agree that my post was caustic... caustic is as caustic does.
defend your husband...
No, you don't need to do that- I know all about what his problem is... I know what these circumcised guys are up against. I know all about it... I know what is going on in their heads- you don't have to tell me. I have a pretty good idea what happens to you when you lose a substantial portion of your sex organ and you have to grow up believing that the unnatural look of your body and the scar on your sex organ was justified somehow... that you HAVE to believe that- because otherwise the other option- it's unspeakable... Yeah- they did that to my husband too... it happens to most victims of circumcisers... thats one of the problems of cutting babies- they can't get the context to frame it all in... they are just left grasping for straws...filling in their blank.
Maybe in twenty five years your own son, all puffed up on the supremacy of his own permenantly exposed coronal ridge will have a wife who sets out to find a medical justification for cutting her son too... because surely she wouldn't want to look in the mirror at herself and think that she was just mutilating their baby for purely sexual control and learned asthetic motivations... no a little bit of medical excuse goes a long way to feel better about an unnatural fixation on the PENIS of a BABY.
need for rudeness? There is none... rudeness is rudeness... like the time I was living in an apartment building and I heard the girl downstairs being strangled and I ran down the stairs with a ball bat and chased her boyfriend out of our building... that was RUDE...barging in a girls apartment and threatening her boyfriend with a weapon. I probably should have just polietly knocked and asked them to keep it down in there. Yeah, sorry I was RUDE... can I ask how you would react if someone was talking about cutting 30- 50% of a female's errogenous flesh off?
the outer 1/10? What are we talking about here? Are you talking about A. initial penetration? Or are you talking about B. a really short penis? Or are you talking about C. having sex by repetedly penetrating and repenetrating?
If the answer is A. being penetrated by an intact man is just as pleasurable as being penetrated by a circumcised man... if your husband is under the impression that the only reason he can make a woman squeak is BECAUSE someone cut his foreskin off... I'm sorry- he is giving his circumciser a lot more credit than that slicer deserves. And I will repeat- you both seem to have a lack of knowledge about male and female sexual function because the standard that you are trying to base your understanding from is one that is artificial- surgicly created.
"it sounds like the skin can be held back to keep the ridge exposed"
Would it be too much for me to ask you two to rent a porno before you thing about destroying this sexual anatomy on another person?... before you spend another hour looking for a medical reason... if you have never even seen this anatomy in action how is it that you have any idea what you are considering doing to this boy? Could you just go to an adult store and ask for something which features an actor who is not circumcised... what's it going to hurt... it's research. Could you do that?
I mean- if you can put your X on the line to authorise a sexual mutilation, I'd think you could at least get up the courage to rent a smut flick. Aren't you curious? How can you possibly be insulted by me calling the two of you out on your ignorance when you both obviously DON'T know. Bless YOU! Bless your marriage and your innocence... curse me and my whole sordid past... but I KNOW... and you are talking about cutting your BABY and you don't even know what it is you are doing to his sex organ. HOW can you frame this decision when your knowledge of the normal unmutilated male sex organ is NONE?
" is the loss of sexual sensation for a male after circumcision, which DH (and, I'm sure, others) actually see as a potential benefit"
Ahah! sexual control rears it's ugly head in the name of sexual performance... It's ok to sexually control a man if it makes him last longer... just like it's ok to sexually control a woman if it makes her submissive to her husband... I see how it is... now we are talking! Women can't be true with a clitoris... men can't sexually preform with a foreskin? Is that how it goes? What do you think happens at night in France?
"since men are more likely to suffer from overstimulation than understimulation (i.e. the longer you can last the better it will be arguemnt)."
Hmmm... interesting- you are trying to apply your abnormal model and reason it out in terms of normal anatomy. Have you considered FOR ONE SECOND... that the reason why YOU might have the idea that "MEN" suffer from "OVERSTIMULATION" is because your idea of MEN is exactly "CIRCUMCISED MEN WHO HAD THEIR INNER SEX ORGAN TURNED INSIDE OUT" that maybe MEN don't suffer from this... maybe CIRUCMSIED MEN do?... did you ever consider for a second that maybe that dreaded "penis head inside the foreskin during intercourse"... that it might be responsible for an intact guy's ability to continue to have sex without directly stimulating his glans... that might enable an intact man to continue to have sex for prolonged amounts of time without driving off the point of no return...that a circumcised guy has no option when he gets stimulated- it's all or nothing- here we go... "DING" did the light go on for you? I'm being as explicit as I think I can get away with here.
Did you ever consider that the (ehem) "extra" sensitivity that intact men have (it's not EXTRA) what if (oh my god!) that was not just more of that out of control here it comes and I can't stop it oh darn oh baseball oh no oh yes... sensitivity... what if it was made up of nerves that were the awh-yeaaaah now here we go now that's what I'm a talking about baby walk this way talk this way like this... like this... like this... nerves? Huh? Did I make the point? Why PRESUME the negative?... that those sexual feelings contained in the unique anatomy would have resulted in LESS SEXUAL CONTROL? What if your idea of oversexed men barely in control of their orgasms is based on the abnormal model of men who are MISSING the anatomy which would have ENABLED them to be connected to their nerves without routing through scars and abnormal anatomy?
Sportscar.. more speed... fistfulls of breaks... fast curves... lot's of fun...
Truckdriver... "Aw no... I don't won't drive a sportscar- what would happen if you was going down a mountain pass an' your breaks went and burnt up- what then?"
"the real issues aren't the sexual ones but the medical and pain ones. "
I don't buy it for a second. Why would you feel compelled to look into it at all... you think Europeans are morons (or lousy lovers for that matter?) No medical group in the WORLD recomends this.. and you think you still need to go out and scour for a medical excuse? No... it's not medical. Here- try this one:http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/sask2002/
" I intend to base my research on the actual studies themselves rather than other's commentary about them. "
GREAT! Would you do me a favor while you are at it... because I have yet to get the answer... Meatal stenosis- it's a circumcision complication that hits more than one in ten circumcised boys- yet that number is not reflected in the circumcision complication statistic reported by the AAP despite the fact that Meatal Stenosis is named among twenty other issues that are named as circumcision complications. If you can get the data on that- I would love to see it. See... I don't think the AAP has given us a very fair commentary on the actual studies.
Simmering down and amazingly if you can believe it... on your side...